Competing technologies to BEV

[Robert.Boston]

​Moderator's Note: I've renamed the thread to make clear that this thread discusses competing technologies whilst the other thread discusses competing vehicles. Again, please remember that this is in the Investor's subforum, and so discussions should link back to the value of TSLA.

 

[rcc]

I agree with most of your statements and I fail to see any rant.

The statements that I disagree with is :

1."In other words when it comes to FCVs and EVs, I think the auto companies are incompetent, not dishonest."

There is no evidence of that and is unlikely in my view.

2. "This is the typical pattern when established companies are confronted with hugely disruptive technologies and business models. They just don't get it. You can literally walk into the executive boardroom, show them precisely how they're going to be disrupted and why and most of them still won't get it. And the few that do won't be able to change their companies fast enough to make a difference because too many of their middle managers and top designers, engineers and architects won't get it."

Imo it is more likely that they do get it. If we can get it, most other people that are interested in the issue can also get it. There is very little that they can do about it, except prolong their business life. It does not make business sense for them to enter ev space as that would significantly shorten the life of their core business and expertise, which is not ev but ice. It would also significantly add to their costs, affecting their results. Their decisions are rational and make economic sense from their perspective.

I've got 25 years of experience as a software engineer in an industry that's all about technology and business model disruptions. I have personally been at companies and been part of developing technologies that disrupted the industry and I've been at companies that were themselves disrupted or were about to be disrupted when I left them. The history of the high-tech is littered with companies that rose because they disrupted old-line companies, became industry leaders and then were themselves disrupted.

Believe me when I say that they don't get it.

Who knows why. You're right ... they should get it. The data's there. They're really smart people. But they don't. It could be that they're too used to seeing the world in certain ways or are too close to the problem. Who knows? But believe me, they don't.

The Innovator's Dilemma (as it is now called) is now a well-known issue so the best tech companies watch out for that. Some are even successful at riding out a wave or two of disruption. But there comes a time when the change is too radical and the company just can't change enough. When that happens, they convince themselves the problem isn't there.

Been there, done that, got the scars.

 

[Tedkidd]

Believe me when I say that they don't get it.

Who knows why. You're right ... they should get it. The data's there. They're really smart people. But they don't. It could be that they're too used to seeing the world in certain ways or are too close to the problem. Who knows? But believe me, they don't.

I agree. It may not be totally inability to see, might be more hope that not changing may sustain long as they need it to. Let the next guy deal with fallout.

I think success may breed a complacency that makes change look more hard than interesting. Didn't Jeff Bezos talk about this? It's a catch 22 he wants to stay in front of.

 

[Julian Cox]

​Moderator's Note: I've renamed the thread to make clear that this thread discusses competing technologies whilst the other thread discusses competing vehicles. Again, please remember that this is in the Investor's subforum, and so discussions should link back to the value of TSLA.

I think that is a useful directional steer.

The value of TSLA is of course based to a large extent on the thesis that in X many years time a large percentage of all new cars produced (half according to Elon Musk) will be EVs and that it is easy to deduce that Tesla has a significant first mover advantage in what will be the new landscape of automotive.

Nobody, (not even the big auto manufacturers) is arguing that Internal Combustion Engine vehicles will provide effective competition to current or future Tesla sales growth. Instead the traditional countervailing bear argument has been that big auto will leverage relatively huge resources to rapidly close the R&D gap with Tesla and commence producing EVs that will swamp the future market for Tesla with efficiencies of scale that Tesla will be unable to match.

Any student of market disruption can calculate that this scenario is both unlikely and lacking in evidence on the ground. As Elon Musk has commented, auto manufacturers do not seem inclined to take that path unless forced by regulation or competitive pressure. Of the two options, big auto has an advanced ability to lobby governments for lenient regulation.

The new bear thesis is that EVs are not the future at all, FCVs are. They are just EVs with longer range and quicker charging times. Now there is plenty of evidence being manufactured to back such a thesis and the promo for it spans government policy and public infrastructure investment and the combined efforts of big auto to rush FCVs to market.

 

[Student_Forever]

Let's assume for a moment that FCVs have succeeded. From the consumer's point there is really not that much difference from the ICEs in the sense that you still have to go through the hassle of buying the car from the auto-dealers and then cash-draining yourself for maintenance costs (which grow every year), etc.

In contrast, if you have an EV like a Model S that doesn't require regular oil change, belt change, and so on, wouldn't the preferred choice be obvious?..

The analogy here is that with most of other consumer goods we don't spend much time, money, and efforts on maintaining them. For example once we bought a cell. phone or even a refrigerator, we don't replace parts and do other extensive maintenance. So why wouldn't consumers realize such a difference between ICEs and EVs? Wouldn't the market naturally correct itself for the survival of the fittest?..

 

[EarlyAdopter]

The biggest advantage I see to BEVs is that most people can fill them up at home. No matter what, ICE and FCV will never have that.

It's decentralized vs. centralized.

No surprise the companies that profit from that centralization will back a new model that remains inherently centralized (hydrogen delivery).

 

[Pollux]

While it is not really for me to take a debate here. First thing. I will produce a more useful piece that consolidates that data that anyone who is primarily interested in the environment can use to deal with the misdirection on this topic, whether a consumer under assault from false advertising or an investor under assault on falsely comparative environmental claims.

This would be much appreciated. My wife runs Environmental Tax Reform-Massachusetts (ETR-MA), and is heavily involved in the Climate Change League (CCL) as well as related endeavors. These organizations are focused on implementing carbon pricing, typically via a mechanism that collects carbon fees at production points and rebates all the money collected back to the taxpayers -- revenue neutral from the standpoint of government. She regularly engages with staff, Representatives and Senators in the Massachusetts State House... and the ETR and CCL web spreads out across many states. Following the math will not be the strong suit of most of these folks. But I'd like to be able to distribute something to her teams as well as others I encounter. So something short, tuned to the activist masses, and perhaps backed up with an appendix that details your calculations would be MOST WELCOME.

THANK YOU!

Alan

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Let's assume for a moment that FCVs have succeeded. From the consumer's point there is really not that much difference from the ICEs in the sense that you still have to go through the hassle of buying the car from the auto-dealers and then cash-draining yourself for maintenance costs (which grow every year), etc.

In contrast, if you have an EV like a Model S that doesn't require regular oil change, belt change, and so on, wouldn't the preferred choice be obvious?..

The analogy here is that with most of other consumer goods we don't spend much time, money, and efforts on maintaining them. For example once we bought a cell. phone or even a refrigerator, we don't replace parts and do other extensive maintenance. So why wouldn't consumers realize such a difference between ICEs and EVs? Wouldn't the market naturally correct itself for the survival of the fittest?..

The difference between an HFCV and a BEV is that the HFCV has an HFC, hydrogen tanks and fueling system and a small battery instead of a large battery and the charger hardware. The drivetrain is electric so the HFCV would remove a lot of the complexity and maintenance that BEVs remove.

So if HFCVs were to succeed there would be massive manufacturing of full traction motors and inverters and increased automotive battery capacity manufacturing. Manufacturers would be primed to sell BEVs as well.

 

[Robert.Boston]

This would be much appreciated. My wife runs Environmental Tax Reform-Massachusetts (ETR-MA), and is heavily involved in the Climate Change League (CCL) as well as related endeavors. These organizations are focused on implementing carbon pricing, typically via a mechanism that collects carbon fees at production points and rebates all the money collected back to the taxpayers -- revenue neutral from the standpoint of government. She regularly engages with staff, Representatives and Senators in the Massachusetts State House... and the ETR and CCL web spreads out across many states. Following the math will not be the strong suit of most of these folks. But I'd like to be able to distribute something to her teams as well as others I encounter. So something short, tuned to the activist masses, and perhaps backed up with an appendix that details your calculations would be MOST WELCOME.

THANK YOU!

Alan

The great thing about a properly designed carbon tax? It would end the need for other supports for things like FCVs. With a carbon tax (on all carbon-based fuels), the high carbon emissions associated with stripping H2 from methane would be imbedded in the price of H2, showing the lie for what it is. More importantly, it would provide private investors the incentive to seek out the best low-carbon technologies to replace the current high-carbon technologies, so there would be no logical rationale for governments playing favorites with one tech over another.

 

[kenliles]

The great thing about a properly designed carbon tax? It would end the need for other supports for things like FCVs. With a carbon tax (on all carbon-based fuels), the high carbon emissions associated with stripping H2 from methane would be imbedded in the price of H2, showing the lie for what it is. More importantly, it would provide private investors the incentive to seek out the best low-carbon technologies to replace the current high-carbon technologies, so there would be no logical rationale for governments playing favorites with one tech over another.

But you first have to admit carbon emissions are the problem. And to do that you have admit not needing their political contributions. I haven't heard much of that from anybody in a position to excerpt a carbon tax on anybody

In the meantime
Carbon Dioxide Levels Topped 400 PPM Throughout Northern Hemisphere In April, WMO Says
Carbon Dioxide Levels Topped 400 PPM Throughout Northern Hemisphere In April, WMO Says

 

[Student_Forever]

ItsNotAboutTheMoney, thank you for the explanation!

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

But you first have to admit carbon emissions are the problem. And to do that you have admit not needing their political contributions. I haven't heard much of that from anybody in a position to excerpt a carbon tax on anybody

In the meantime
Carbon Dioxide Levels Topped 400 PPM Throughout Northern Hemisphere In April, WMO Says
Carbon Dioxide Levels Topped 400 PPM Throughout Northern Hemisphere In April, WMO Says

Well, if it's literally a tax on carbon and not a carbon dioxide tax then it would encourage coal gasification over regular coal power and coal gasification increases carbon dioxide levels.

 

[Pollux]

Hi, @ItsNotAboutTheMoney,

Could you please explain further? I had thought that a carbon pricing mechanism would capture all coal-related activity.

Thanks,
Alan

Well, if it's literally a tax on carbon and not a carbon dioxide tax then it would encourage coal gasification over regular coal power and coal gasification increases carbon dioxide levels.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Hi, @ItsNotAboutTheMoney,

Could you please explain further? I had thought that a carbon pricing mechanism would capture all coal-related activity.

Thanks,
Alan

I'm only being half serious. A "carbon tax" could literally be measure of the use of carbon or it could be a "carbon dioxide tax" under a shorter name.
Coal gasification plants grind up the coal and gasify it and then burn the gas. These are more efficient and cleaner than conventional coal plants, but produce more carbon dioxide per kWh output. This is where additional carbon capture could come in.

 

[renim]

carbon pricing is not a technology so should go to another thread.

Having said that, 2 metals very important to Tesla (Aluminium and Nickel) tend to be sourced from high or low carbon intensive suppliers with not much in the middle. So an actual carbon price could push the global price of all Nickel up, if it were to reduce the supply of just the high carbon suppliers. Nickel price is very volatile to supply/demand, more so than any other non ferrous metal traded on the LME. Historical Nickel Prices and Price Chart - InvestmentMine

 

[stopcrazypp]

Coal gasification plants grind up the coal and gasify it and then burn the gas. These are more efficient and cleaner than conventional coal plants, but produce more carbon dioxide per kWh output.

Do you have a source for this claim and an explanation of the chemistry (I think I asked about this in another thread too)?

Wikipedia has this:
3C (i.e., coal) + O2 + H2O → H2 + 3CO
CO + H2O → CO2 + H2
Coal gasification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems to indicate the carbon source is from the coal (no additional carbon sources added), so I'm not seeing how it's possible for coal gasification to be both more efficient than coal plants, but at the same time producing more carbon dioxide per kWh.

Wikipedia also seems to indicate coal gasification (GEE is General Electric Energy, CoP is ConocoPhillips, Shell is Shell) even without carbon capture has lower CO2/kWh than conventional pulverized coal (PC) combustion, although it's not better than NGCC (Natural Gas Combined Cycle, far right).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gasification#Environmental_impact_of_modern_coal_gasification

 

[Johan]

Do you have a source for this claim and an explanation of the chemistry (I think I asked about this in another thread too)?

Wikipedia has this:
3C (i.e., coal) + O2 + H2O → H2 + 3CO
CO + H2O → CO2 + H2
Coal gasification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems to indicate the carbon source is from the coal (no additional carbon sources added), so I'm not seeing how it's possible for coal gasification to be both more efficient than coal plants, but at the same time producing more carbon dioxide per kWh.

I agree with your basic math but I guess the claim is that every kg of coal that goes in to the plant is more fully burnt when first gassified = more efficient. However it does not make sense to say more CO2 per kWh but but rather more CO2 (and also more kWh) per kg of raw coal.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I agree with your basic math but I guess the claim is that every kg of coal that goes in to the plant is more fully burnt when first gassified = more efficient. However it does not make sense to say more CO2 per kWh but but rather more CO2 (and also more kWh) per kg of raw coal.

What you say makes sense, but ItsNotAboutTheMoney is saying more CO2 per kWh (not per kg of raw coal), which does not makes sense to me unless the gasification process has additional carbon added to it (not from the coal).

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

What you say makes sense, but ItsNotAboutTheMoney is saying more CO2 per kWh (not per kg of raw coal), which does not makes sense to me unless the gasification process has additional carbon added to it (not from the coal).

Ignore me, I re-checked and my info was wrong.

 

[Dan5]

If that graph is correct, even if you adjust for transmission losses
just a rough eyeball of 220 lbs per MWH yield an equivalent emissions of 260 mpg car.

Even if you use a plain old regular coal plant the emissions are equivalent to a 35 mpg car.

Well, considering the Tesla is a sports car and its category (large luxury sedan), even 35 mpg equivalent emissions is great; the best case coal scenario is just plain amazing.